Bringing together non-believers
I questioned creation in one of my posts, and this is what one of the Christians had to say.
It’s quite fascinating seeing the atheist look so deep into science to prove that God does not exist. He unfortunately does a very shoddy job on two levels. One is that he does not take the time to understand the story of creation and its purpose. The second is that he does not look to history to see what the early Christians believed with regards to the story of creation. We also know that the genealogy of Jesus doesn’t necessarily depict all descendants of Jesus but shows the bloodline.
Well, as Catholics at least, since the time of the papal encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, it is perfectly ok to believe in the scientific account of creation. Its also ok to believe in evolution, something verified in Humani Generis. In this encyclical, the biblical author is not giving a scientific account. This is important. The author is doing theology in the categories of his time. This isn’t hypothetical, deductive reasoning about empirical measured observations. They aren’t highly mathematical constructions of theories to explain empirical observations. They are not about natural science at all. God took the author and used him in his very context. So what exactly is the author talking about if its not about science? Good question (Yes. I like having internal dialogues just to confuse my enemies.) The Gilgemesh epic & other epics roving around at the time talks of having many gods. The author straightens them out talking of one God. He talks of other things are creatures & objects. He talks of how kind God is in contrast to the other gods. And if we investigate the theological aspect of creation in the bible with the scientific aspect we see a confluence depicting the love God has for us.
The atheist takes a bible, reads it for himself without even asking for assistance in debunking some of the complex bits of the bible or even looking at history to see what it has to offer in response. Its no wonder that he takes everything literally. I wonder how he faired in literature at the least. The atheist takes it that all through history Christians were forced to believe in the story of creation. If only the atheist had done his research properly. Last week when he was talking about Celsus he may have forgotten that there was a response to Celsus’ false claims by Origen, that is, Contra Celsus. In that same document Origen shows that we don’t necessarily take the creation narration literally. And we can show even earlier church father’s writings depicting the same. How interesting it is that only the atheist’s understanding of the bible leads him to believe what he wants to believe.
Lastly, the atheist would have us pitch science & religion on opposite sides. It would be wise for the atheist to look at the majority of Nobel prize winners who are firm believing Christians. Christians who even in their faith championed scientific breakthroughs. He also turns a blind eye unto the organizations championing such scientists. It would be a surprise to the atheist of how many are indeed Christian organizations. Science and religion (the right religion) will never be against one another because they came from one who can neither deceive nor be deceived.
Let us follow the evidence and we’ll eventually see that creation demands a creator.
Any help we can give here?
Inspirational kwotes, stories and images
Know your candidates
Just another WordPress.com site
Exploring my changing beliefs
Engaging modern atheism
atheism, religion, science, dave
We are a minority within a minority.
Bringing together non-believers